Denlay v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 1517

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Denlay v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 1517 Citation: Denlay v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 1517

Parties: KEVIN VINCENT DENLAY v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION MIRJA HELENA DENLAY v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

File numbers: QUD 347 of 2010 QUD 348 of 2010

Judge: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 14 September 2010

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Exceptions to hearsay rule – Whether documents admissible as business records and proof of existence of other documents – Evidence admitted

Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 59, 60, 69, 136

Date of hearing: 14 September 2010

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 13

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B Walker SC with Mr GES Ng

Solicitor for the Applicant: Nyst Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Robertson SC and Mr W Wigney SC with Mr P Looney

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QUD 347 of 2010

BETWEEN: KEVIN VINCENT DENLAY

Applicant

AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

JUDGE: LOGAN J DATE OF ORDER: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. As to the documents which comprise Exhibits 31 and 32 to the affidavit of AJ Tiplady dated 23 August 2010 namely a copy of a Media Communiqué dated 24 February 2008 and issued by the LGT Group Foundation entitled "LGT: Illegally disclosed data material limited to the client data stolen from LGT Treuhand in 2002 – Further Information about the offender and the circumstances of the data theft" and copy of a press release dated 27 February 2008 from the Liechtenstein Office of the Public Prosecutor: (a) Each document falls within the exception in s 60(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and is admissible as proof of the fact of the existence of a document containing particular allegations. (b) Only so much of the communiqué which is Exhibit 31 as relates to or contains representations of events directly concerning the bank and the bank's affairs is further admissible pursuant to the exception in s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). For the avoidance of doubt that means that so much of the document as concerns actions of the government of Liechtenstein itself or actions that Mr Keiber is alleged in the document to have taken vis-à-vis princely officers of Liechtenstein is not admissible as proof of these representations pursuant to the exception in s 69. (c) Exhibit 31 is further admissible, pursuant to the exception in s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as proof of the representations contained therein. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website.